Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, November 12, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />    Page 8 of 36   <br />(7. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE, LLC (TODD HOLMERS), 3700 NORTHERN AVENUE, <br />SUBDIVISION – PRELIMINARY PLAT – PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />Stickney stated the Planning Commission felt they were well within the range of acceptability with the <br />number of lots. Stickney noted they have been going through this process for seven or eight months and <br />that they could create something that would comply but be a lot less desirable. Stickney stated he is <br />surprised at the discussion about limiting it to four lots. <br /> <br />Levang noted the Council looks at each application individually and that she would like to see this <br />application tabled or denied. <br /> <br />Stickney stated this discussion is the opposite of what they envisioned. <br /> <br />Anderson noted she attended both Planning Commission meetings and that she was more in favor of the <br />smiley face PRD option. Anderson indicated she liked the idea of the homeowners association taking <br />care of the outlots and that a number of the neighbors indicated they enjoyed the natural area. <br /> <br />Levang stated she also attended both Planning Commission meetings and that she did not like the plan <br />either time because in her view the density is too high. Levang stated in her view the back portion of the <br />property should be preserved with a conservation easement and that she would like to see a proposal with <br />100-foot wide lots, one-half acre density, and no trail. <br /> <br />McMillan indicated she agrees with Council Member Levang. <br /> <br />Bremer indicated she prefers Option 1 and that she generally likes the idea of a conservation easement <br />versus an outlot. Bremer stated she would agree to either Option 1 or Option 2 depending on what the <br />other Council members thought. <br /> <br />McMillan stated four lots without the back outlot would also be fine but that it would not be ideal to add <br />more density to a site that comfortably fits four. McMillan stated the developer is attempting to max out <br />the property. <br /> <br />Stickney noted the dry buildable is .63. <br /> <br />McMillan noted the wetland in the middle makes it more difficult and that the dry buildable is not all <br />contiguous. <br /> <br />Printup asked at what point it would be necessary to send the application back to the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the City Council has that option at any time. Gaffron noted the 120-day deadline for <br />review expires January 7 and that the application would not go to the Planning Commission until mid <br />January. If that would occur, the applicant would need to agree to an extension. If the applicant does not <br />agree to an extension, the City Council would need to deny the application at some point before the <br />deadline expires. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 11/25/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 11/12/2013 <br />[Page 8 of 36]